Must Read

M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, 1964

Image
M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, (1964) 6 SCR 642, 651 This case interpretation/case summary is written by Ms. Swati Sharma a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University). If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to  niyamskanoon09@gmail.com . Case Details PETITIONER:  MRS. M. N. CLUBWALA AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: FIDA HUSSAIN SAHEB AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/02/1964 BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R. SUBBARAO, K. CITATION: 1965 AIR 610 1964 SCR (6) 642 Introduction   The case of M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb (1964) under the Delhi Rent Control Act is a landmark judgment that clarifies the distinction between a lease and a license and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The primary issue in this case was whether the agreements between the landlord (M.N. Clubwala) and the shopkeepers (Fida Hussain Saheb) created a lease or a license.  Facts of the Case M.N. Clubwala (Landlord) used his building as market by
Post a Comment

Abdul Karim v. State of Karnataka (2000)

 Abdul Karim v. State of Karnataka (2000)


Introduction

The present appeal was raised against the order of a Special Designated court which withdrew the charges made under TADA, on an application made by Special Public Prosecutor under S.321 of the CrPC. The appellant alleged that the application to withdraw the prosecution was made in lieu of the release of actor Rajkumar who had been abducted by the prime accused Veerappan. 

Facts

  1. Veerappan, a prime accused in various cases under different penal laws for committing offenses such as smuggling of elephants ivory and sandalwood, kidnapping, murder, and so on, abducted a famous actor Rajkumar and 3 others, out of them 1 was escaped and 1 was released.
  2. The accused Veerappan put a total of 12 demands before the State Government of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka for the release of Rajkumar and another. 
  3. Out of the 12 demands, 2 are important for our consideration in this case. The first was to release his associates from Karnataka prison, and the second was to release the 5 prisoners from Tamilnadu prison. Both the government had agreed to act favorably.
  4. Thereafter, on an application for withdrawal from the prosecution under S.321 of the CrPC made by the Special Public Prosecutor against the charges under TADA, the Special Designated Court consented to withdraw and discharged all the accused. Thereafter all the accused were also released on bail.
  5. Also the Tamilnadu government by an order discharged the accused of the offenses under TADA and the National Security Act.
  6. Against this decision of the Special Court and order of the Tamilnadu government, two public interest petitions and an appeal by the appellant Abdul Karim (father of Sakeel Ahmed who was killed by Veerappan and his associates) have been filed in the Supreme Court.

Appellant Contention

  1. The decision of the public prosecutor is without any cogent reason to drop the charges of the known offender.
  2. It is the duty of the Special Public Prosecutor to inform the court the reasonable reasons to withdraw the prosecution. 

Issue 

  1. What things should be taken into consideration while deciding the application of withdrawing the prosecution? 

Ratio Decidendi 

  1. Although the application by the Special Public Prosecutor submitted that it has been made in the public interest in order to restore peace and normalcy in the border area, the Special Public Prosecutor failed to provide any reason or any material regarding his apprehension of the disturbance of the peace and normalcy in the border area on which the Court can rely to conclude that the Special Public Prosecutor had applied his mind and exercised its discretion in good faith.
  2. Also the Ld. Judge did not inquire the Special Public Prosecutor regarding the opposition made by the appellant in which it was alleged that the Special Public Prosecutor was acting for the government to fulfill the demands of the prime accused Veerappan by releasing his associates.
  3. The application before the Designated Court at Chennai only submitted that due to the changed circumstances and in the public interest, the prosecution shall be withdrawn. There is no mention of what those changed circumstances were.
  4. The Special Public Prosecutor should have considered the probability of the release of Rajkumar with or without withdrawal of charges, the impact on the witnesses after the release of the accused, and so on.
  5. In the affidavit placed before this Court, the Special Public Prosecutor used the phrase" I was informed" which means he did not by himself assess the situation based on any material. He merely acted on the instruction of the Government.
  6. In case of withdrawal, even after the instruction of the government, it is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to apply his mind and to see whether the instruction to withdraw is justified. 
  7. The Court in an application under Section 321 has to see whether the application is made in good faith, in the interest of public policy and justice and not to prevent the process of law.
  8. The power of the Court under S. 321 is supervisory, not adjudicatory.
  9. An application under S.321 shall be made only after the Public Prosecutor is satisfied by applying his mind to the relevant material in good faith that such withdrawal is in the public interest and will not prevent the process of law or cause injustice.

Decision 

  1. There are no cogent reasons to withdraw the prosecution.
  2. The Special Public Prosecutor acted only upon the instructions of the Government of the State of Karnataka without applying his own mind.
  3. Hence, he did not follow the requirement of the law under Section 321, consequently, the Court allowed the appeal. 

Summary

This case is known as the Rajkumar Kidnapping case in which a prime accused in various cases, Veerappan, abducted a famous actor Rajkumar, and demanded to release his associates and so on which has been accepted by the Government of Karnataka and Tamilnadu. As a result, the government instructed the Public Prosecutor to issue an application to release them to maintain peace in border areas and to avoid unpleasant situations. The Court observed that under Section 321, an application under S.321 shall be made only after the Public Prosecutor is satisfied by applying his mind to the relevant material in good faith that such withdrawal is in the public interest and will not prevent the process of law or cause injustice. The Court by allowing the appeal held that the Special Public Prosecutor acted only upon the instructions of the Government of the State of Karnataka without applying his own mind. Hence, he did not follow the requirement of the law under Section 321, consequently, the Court allowed the appeal.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more